I'm curious about how folks here at Dhamma Wheel interpret the traditional Buddhist cosmology -- i.e. the 31 planes of existence. Do you:

-- see them as literal truths, exactly as set out in the Canon-- see them as physical destinations-- see them as mind states-- see them as both (i.e. the two amount to the same thing)-- see them as provisional expressions, couched in the worldview of an ancientculture, of something that is true in essence...but would be understood differently today--see them as metaphors, or as figurative -- similar to mythical stuff in the Old Testament-- see them as not really relevant to your practice-- reject them...rebirth only takes place in the human realm, or doesn't take place at all

And what are your reasons? Note -- I am not seeking to start an argument here. Bhikkhu Bodhi has said such arguments are pointless, and I believe him. Just wanted to get an idea of what people think.

I think there's merit in each of the first five approaches you list above. I'm inclined to lean towards options 3 and 4.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

Lazy_eye wrote:-- see them as literal truths, exactly as set out in the Canon-- see them as physical destinations-- see them as mind states-- see them as both (i.e. the two amount to the same thing)-- see them as provisional expressions, couched in the worldview of an ancientculture, of something that is true in essence...but would be understood differently today--see them as metaphors, or as figurative -- similar to mythical stuff in the Old Testament-- see them as not really relevant to your practice-- reject them...rebirth only takes place in the human realm, or doesn't take place at all

I see them as a combination of most of the above, with some destinations fitting into each of the above. For example:

I'm curious about how folks here at Dhamma Wheel interpret the traditional Buddhist cosmology -- i.e. the 31 planes of existence. Do you:

1- see them as literal truths, exactly as set out in the Canon2- see them as physical destinations3- see them as mind states4- see them as both (i.e. the two amount to the same thing)5- see them as provisional expressions, couched in the worldview of an ancientculture, of something that is true in essence...but would be understood differently today6-see them as metaphors, or as figurative -- similar to mythical stuff in the Old Testament7- see them as not really relevant to your practice8- reject them...rebirth only takes place in the human realm, or doesn't take place at all

And what are your reasons? Note -- I am not seeking to start an argument here. Bhikkhu Bodhi has said such arguments are pointless, and I believe him. Just wanted to get an idea of what people think.

Thanks!

I see them as #1 because of my liberal feelings about interpreting what "literal" means when it comes to such things.As #2 because it might be the most accurate way for me to relate to what is most likley a very important "reality".As #3 because of my experience of mind statesAs #4 because Its best to hedge ones bets when it comes to such thingsAs #5 because that seems logical enoughAs #6 because it covers all the above and leaves some room for a new understanding to be perceived on a deeper level.

But I think I may be a delusion type so its easy for me to accept confusion.

Metta

Gabriel

Last edited by Prasadachitta on Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332

I always find it interesting to ask, "On which plane of existence did the Buddha exist?"

To what extent did he "exist" in the human realm.

There's a sutta somewhere, but unfortunately I can't find it, which discusses the Buddha's definition of the extent to which things exist, and the arahant (or Buddha of course) has transcended all of the criteria by which someone could be said to exist.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

I see them as point one, because I can't see why a sammā-sambuddha should give metaphorical lectures without making clear that he uses metaphors.

But that's faith. As long as I'm a puthujjana and haven't seen the planes of existence for myself (remembering past lives, seeing beings passing away and reappearing, devas contacting me, or something like that), I just can't say for sure.

with metta

"Once you understand anatta, then the burden of life is gone. You’ll be at peace with the world. When we see beyond self, we no longer cling to happiness and we can truly be happy." - Ajahn Chah

-- see them as mind states-- see them as both (i.e. the two amount to the same thing)

but I focus more on the first one since thats what is important

i say they are mind states because there are instances where the Buddha states that when one is practicing metta for example he reappears in the Brahma realm, since he isnt dead it obviously doesnt relate to after death (forgive me for not providing a quote but my internet is broke at home so writting this in work)

As for the second point, i see no reason that mind states cant correlate to a realm after death, but as i said i dont think this aspect is that important and its pure speculation on my part as all i can know is this life

"And do you think that unto such as you, A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew, God gave a secret and denied it me! Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!

Since I should probably answer my own question, I'll go for #3, #4 and #5. It seems to me that if we conceive of the realms purely in physical terms, then we are espousing a kind of materialism -- because we would be saying that the quality of experience depends on the physical circumstances.

But beings might exist who do not find hell (as a physical place) unpleasant, or heaven pleasant.

“When the average ignorant person makes an assertion that there is a Hell under the ocean (or other freezing or burning, fire ridden place), he is making a statement that is false and without basis. The word ‘hell’ is a term for painful bodily sensations.” Samyutta Nikaya 36.4

TheDhamma wrote:“When the average ignorant person makes an assertion that there is a Hell under the ocean (or other freezing or burning, fire ridden place), he is making a statement that is false and without basis. The word ‘hell’ is a term for painful bodily sensations.” Samyutta Nikaya 36.4

Nyanaponika translated it differently:

"When, O monks, an untaught worldling says that in the great ocean there is a (bottomless) pit,(1) he speaks about something unreal and not factual.(2) 'The (bottomless) pit,' O monks, is rather a name for painful bodily feelings."

Notes:(1). Patala.

(2). Comy. (paraphrased): According to popular belief, there is in the ocean a very deep abyss hollowed out by the force of the water, which is the abode of aquatic animals as well as dragon deities (naga), etc. Hence, for these beings, this abyss provides a basis for their existence, a comfortable abode. Therefore, to call it a bottomless pit is unrealistic and not factual, because it gives an inadequate and non-evident meaning to the word. It is rather bodily pain, inseparable from bodily existence, which deserves to be called a "bottomless pit" of suffering, being a part of unfathomable Samsara.

Fully developed Buddhist cosmology holds that above the world in which we human beings are at home thereare six heavens inhabited by gods; and above them again are heavens of a more rarefied kindinhabited by Brahmas, who are thus super-gods. Even above these heavens there are planesinhabited only by meditating minds. Most, perhaps all, of this cosmology can be unpackedby the historian as a reification of various metaphors. That Brahma is above ordinary godsis a brahminical tenet found in the Upanishads, including the very texts to which we can showthat the Buddha was reacting.

The fully developed Buddhist cosmology does appear within the canon, but I amextremely sceptical about whether it can be ascribed to the Buddha himself. I am scepticalnot only because of the way that the details can be accounted for as a historicaldevelopment; to show such interest in the structure of the universe goes against theBuddha’s explicit message. The world, he said, lies within this fathom-long humancarcass; indeed, there are many texts in which he discourages speculation about or eveninterest in the physical universe; we should concentrate on our experience of life here andnow.

I agree overall with Gombrich's view. In my opinion, the Buddhist cosmology was largely codified later on in Buddhism due to taking things in an overly literal sense. There was a definite tendency to see the Buddha in a greater super-human even god-like fashion as centuries passed. Such notions bred that the Buddha was speacking internal doctrinal truths loosing sight of the fact that the Buddha was replying to people in a specific context where he often by skill-in-means took on his interlocator's preconceived notions to help explain a teaching.

If you study the evolution of the cosmology began one can see that it is simply a human creation of the mind. For example, in the early Vedas the realm of the fathers (pitaras or departed) was seen as a heaven that turned later into the hungry ghosts preta which was a terrible realm.

puthujjana wrote:I see them as point one, because I can't see why a sammā-sambuddha should give metaphorical lectures without making clear that he uses metaphors.

But that's faith. As long as I'm a puthujjana and haven't seen the planes of existence for myself (remembering past lives, seeing beings passing away and reappearing, devas contacting me, or something like that), I just can't say for sure.

I have to correct my own posting, because I wasn't aware what "literal" actually means (...my poor english skills)I didn't mean to take the tipitaka word-by-word...

What I wanted to say is that I take the cosmology as described in the tipitaka - but not word-by-word.

So I take point 2 (...see them as physical destinations) because that's how it's - in my opinion - described in the suttas.

But, as TheDhamma pointed out already, the term mara in the suttas obviously (or at least very often) means mind-states full of lust and longing. So it can also mean mind-states in some cases.

with metta

"Once you understand anatta, then the burden of life is gone. You’ll be at peace with the world. When we see beyond self, we no longer cling to happiness and we can truly be happy." - Ajahn Chah